Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL]

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 13th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, I support the comments made by my noble friend Lord Moylan. I do not think that there is a very simple solution. Before we covered all the legislation from the European Union, it was fairly straightforward for many decades in this country, as the CAA as a regulator had sole responsibility for all the technical issues, obviously coming under the auspices of the Government, the Secretary of State and certain experts and committees. We then started to debate and bring in a lot of primary legislation from the EU; that was obviously implemented in all member states, including the United Kingdom.

From when I entered the European Parliament in 1999, all these huge subjects—security, passenger rights, traffic rights, airspace restructuring, mandatory reporting, slots, flight time limitations or anything else related—were all debated by the Committee on Transport and Tourism. It was not a small committee; the committees in the European Parliament are not small. Everything was debated very carefully, with different points of view. Experts were brought in. It would take a couple of years to take through a piece of legislation. It was the same system, where there were at least two or three readings.

That brings me to where we are, because we have a different system. It is clear to me that the CAA is our primary regulator—it is an excellent regulator, in my view. We in the United Kingdom were always seen as one of the paramount countries in terms of regulation for both the maritime and aviation sectors. How is this going to work? On the one hand, we have the Civil Aviation Authority, which is the correct regulator, but, on the other, throughout the Bill there is reference to “the Secretary of State will decide”. Therefore, the Secretary of State decides, but there does not seem to be anything in the middle.

That brings me to the question of how we then bring back very difficult and complex decisions, for example, to the Floor of the House or a Committee. In the European Parliament, when we believed it was a very important issue—such as passenger rights or security—we did not go along with the delegated Acts argument. With delegated Acts, once something was updated, the Commission could then implement those changes without coming back to the Parliament. Therefore, very often, we insisted that, for a number of these subjects, we would have implementing Acts. Therefore, whenever a piece of legislation—for security, passenger rights or slots, for example—needed to come back to be updated, normally within a few years, it would come back to the Parliament and withstand scrutiny by the members of a committee who could call in the required experts.

There is, therefore, a bit of an issue over how we bridge this to ensure that, when we require scrutiny and some of the areas of civil aviation to come into Parliament for more discussion and debate, there is an easy way for that to happen. This is not a criticism of the Civil Aviation Authority; as I have said, it is an excellent authority. I will throw that to our friend, the Minister, who, as he very well knows, I have great regard for, because it needs some clarification.

My final point is on growth. My noble friend covered this issue well already. I do not see anything in the Bill that shows where we can create growth. There seem to be many areas where, as my noble friends said, we want to increase taxation or business rates on the industry. Other Members of this House would like to see the industry restricted, which is not what I would like to see. Again, we need to be bold and forthright. This industry is hugely important to the economy; basically, it is one of the most successful industries that we have ever created in this country, with vectors from around the world from imports and exports, as well as the free movement of people. I would like to hear more from the Minister on how we can achieve growth here, because some of the restrictions that are proposed by others will certainly not lead to the continued success that we would all like to see.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

My Lords, this is a very strange Bill; it is a Bill in search of a purpose, which proposes and transfers substantial powers to a regulatory body but which gives us no road map for how those powers are going to be used. In the debates we have had so far and in the amendments we are looking at this afternoon, it is inevitable that there will be amendments to try to give the Bill a purpose, to limit the use of the powers, because their use has not been explained, and to get some better regulation directly into the Bill, given the absence of any suggestion for improvements in the legislation that we have before us. That includes some very good proposals that we will come to later to improve the lot of disabled travellers, for example. I can understand why people want to get something worth while into the Bill, which is otherwise this rather strange transfer of powers, in order to be able to trust this independent body. We know that there is no urgency about this because we know from the impact assessment that there will not be any costs or benefits for the foreseeable future, and that the CAA will be given about a year after the successful passage of the Bill, if it goes through, to contemplate and review.

I support my noble friend because he is trying to give the Bill an overriding purpose, which should be entirely at one with the manifesto, the plans and the stated intentions of both the outgoing and the incoming Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think we all agree, across parties, that it would be good if our economy grew faster than it has been growing since the great crash of 2008-09. Surely we can all see that this requires a sector-by-sector response, as well as changes in general economic policy that are not the subject of this debate.

My noble friend is right to try to make growth and competitiveness the twin aims. I suspect that the Minister is very sympathetic, but he will need to get colleagues and others to co-operate in speeding up work to try to ensure that the aviation sector—which is normally a fast-growing, modernising, important sector, particularly in an island country that needs good transport links—is one of the attractive means of increasing our activity and our growth, creating more and better-paid jobs.

This legislation covers issues that could make a very material contribution to that faster growth. It covers the question of airport slots. Will there be more of them, and is there a policy to try to create more capacity? What is the Government’s view on airport expansion? Will there be more expansion of smaller and regional airports to take some of the strain off the main centre in London? What is the plan for London, and when will we have the very large number of slots expanded? It is clearly under great pressure of demand.

Regulations on charging are mentioned but not detailed in this legislation. We have already heard from my noble friend about the possible tax charges on certain types of business premise, but we really need to hear from the Government what the charging policy is going to be for scarce airport space, particularly in London, where we are becoming uncompetitive against Schiphol, Paris, Frankfurt and some of the other continental airports that are our natural competitors. If you become not very price competitive, you start to lose the interlining and air-switching business, which can be handled by a big intersection airport such as Amsterdam just as well as it can be handled by Heathrow. We need a bit more guidance on how these regulations might develop and be included.

I urge the Minister to take off one or two of the veils and give us some idea of how these policies on improved regulation for the cost of use of airports, the amount of airport space, the allocation of slots and the general conduct of air traffic in our country might be deployed. I find it odd that, two years into a Government with a very strong majority and a strong mandate for quite a limited manifesto, they do not seem to have those burning desires, for example, to get our aviation sector really growing quickly. They are not answering the questions about these very basic things. How much airport space? How do you allocate the slots? What is the pricing? How much support do you give to the industry? What will the regulatory impact be on that industry? We all want safety regulation and good regulation so that the customer gets a decent deal, but we do not want so much regulation that it throttles the industry here and an extremely mobile and fast-moving industry can shift its assets the following day to another hub airport somewhere else, taking a lot of the business away.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for Amendment 1, but I express concern that it and Amendment 3 are in conflict in their proposed new subsections (1)(c) and (1B)(c). The reason for that was amply explained by the noble Lord, Lord Redwood. He started by saying that this Bill is one in search of a purpose, but went on to say that we are going to improve the lot of disabled people, among other things. I am very grateful that he said that, because proposed new subsection (1B)(c) in Amendment 3 asks the Secretary of State to make it an absolute priority to consider the impact of the regulations on

“the burdens imposed on air transport service providers and airport operators in complying with the regulations”.

Part of the journey of disabled people in buying a ticket, going through various airports and actually flying is that most of the providers would say that all provision for disabled people is a burden. They try to minimise everything they can. Does the Minister agree with me on that? Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, also might like to address that when he comments at the end.

--- Later in debate ---

There are very simple solutions. The legislation and the rules are already in place and civil aviation can come down like a ton of bricks. It behoves the Government, and I would support them absolutely, to ensure that the airlines and the airports—it is the airports in a lot of these cases—actually comply with the regulations that are laid down.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, posed an interesting question when she said that she thought that the mixture of amendments in this grouping created a tension and that maybe Amendment 4 was not compatible because it was trying to reduce the administrative and regulatory burden, whereas some of the other amendments were trying to achieve better outcomes, particularly for disabled passengers, by improved regulation. However, I think that these two things are perfectly compatible.

Most of us in this House benefited greatly from learning from the expertise of noble Lords and noble Baronesses with experience of service for disabled passengers, and we would want the regulations to be of the best quality in order to give the best opportunity for good outcomes. However, we have also heard from my noble friend Lady Foster, with her experience of the airline industry, that a lot of the bad cases that have been described are bad practice by a commercial business. They may already be violating existing rules, but they are certainly violating normal standards of good conduct and probably doing damage to the reputation of that business, because not only the disabled people but all their families and friends will be singularly unimpressed by what has occurred. We clearly need a cultural improvement in the case of some commercial airlines, and it may be that some of the proposed improvements in the regulation will help achieve that.

If we look at the whole burden of the cost and complexity of regulation, we can see that that great weight of business and economic regulation, as the CAA and others call it, is exceptionally complicated and is now producing a cost problem for aviation that is using the facilities of United Kingdom airports and trying to build businesses from a United Kingdom hub and headquarters base. That regulation is doing a lot of business damage to our growth and competitiveness and encouraging the growth of alternatives, such as Schiphol. That is what the Minister and his colleagues in other economic departments ought to be most interested in, and it is why I am attracted to my noble friend Lord Moylan’s proposal that the Government should either put their own general target for deregulation into the Bill or at the very least say, in the course of this debate, that aviation is not excluded from what is a perfectly attainable and sensible aim.

For all those noble Lords who think that the EU gets a lot of these things right, the EU is, of course, following exactly the same stated policy: it has come to the conclusion, through a number of reports, that it is massively overregulated and therefore not competitive compared with, say, the United States of America. It too is trying to set itself a target of a 25% reduction in the volume and cost of regulation, because it thinks that would be a good start in trying to restore some of the lost jobs and slower growth that it is undoubtedly incurring as a result of overcomplicated and excessive regulation, in particular business and economic regulation of the kind that afflicts the United Kingdom’s aviation industry. I hope that this House will look favourably upon my noble friend’s proposals and see that they are perfectly compatible with the excellent idea that we need better treatment for disabled passengers.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I will comment very briefly on my noble friend Lord Moylan’s Amendment 4. There are two parts to it. The first part, as he explained very carefully to the House, is the 25% reduction in administrative costs, which is the Government’s own target. We discussed this in Committee and I asked the Minister if he would set out the progress that the Government have made in achieving that 25% cost reduction in the areas that are the responsibility of his department. Clearly, we are two years into a five-year Parliament, so if the Government were on track, other things being equal, one would expect a 10% reduction in cost or an explanation as to why it was going to be loaded towards the back end of the Parliament. We did not get a lot of information, so I would be grateful if the Minister could tell the House what work is going on in the Department for Transport to track progress in reaching that 25% reduction in administrative costs. What information is currently available and published by the department about hitting that target? As my noble friend Lord Moylan said, if we received a lot of that information it would make the amendment unnecessary.

My second and final point is just to reflect on the point that I made on the earlier group. The wording of my noble friend Lord Moylan’s proposed new subsection (1B) is very sensible. It does not rule out the imposition of costs, but it challenge the Government to make a judgment as to whether the cost increase is disproportionate to the consumer benefit. It absolutely would allow some regulations to be introduced that had a cost but it would require the Government to look at the benefit that those regulations delivered to passengers and assess whether that balance was correct—in other words, whether the benefit to passengers outweighed the costs that were levied on the airlines. That is a good test for the Government. We do not want to have costly regulations which have a big economic burden but do not result in significant benefits to passengers. That is a perfectly sensible point and one which I think addresses the perfectly sensible point that the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, made about making sure that the focus on economics does not lead to a reduction in passenger support.

Railways Bill

Lord Redwood Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

I agree with the Minister’s three main aims for railway improvement. He is right that punctuality is insufficient. Last year, under 85% of trains arrived within three minutes of timetable and over 4% of services were cancelled altogether. He is right that we need to improve the quality of the passenger experience. That will require innovation, new services geared to people’s lives and their travel demands, and delivering them a travel offer at an affordable price, an acceptable fare. The railway is too detached and is running far too many nearly empty trains around to fill a timetable. This is interspersed with, at popular times, too few popular trains, with 169,000 people standing in very cramped and unsafe conditions on a typical day. A lot of work needs to go into getting into the modern world and understanding travel patterns.

Above all, the Minister is right that there needs to be a revolution in value for money. We are paying far too much as taxpayers, in some cases far too much as fare payers, and in other cases travelling on heavily subsidised fares, in relation to the amount of work that the railway is able to do. Last year, taxpayers had to put in £21.6 billion to this railway system, and fare payers were persuaded to put in only £11.5 billion. So limited was the offer that was made available on this vast network that taxpayers were paying twice as much as fare payers—general taxpayers twice as much as the more limited number of people who were actually using the railway.

So we do need a revolution. I share some of my noble friend Lady May’s scepticism about whether the right revolution can come from nationalisation itself. The Government need to describe more accurately to the public the nature of the railway that they took responsibility for some two years ago. I am the first to confess that the Governments I supported did not get it all right and that there were many failings that needed to be corrected. But the Minister should be honest with the public and remind them that all the track, all the signals, all the structures and all the stations were taken into public ownership by a previous Labour Government in 2002. He should also point out that many of the problems, delays and interruptions of service have, in recent years, been created by failings in the nationalised part of the system, as well as some of them, as he will rightly point out, being created by the train operating companies which the predecessor Government were gradually getting rid of—and it is also his policy to complete that task.

However, this great, controlling mind they are going to find—I trust that this lady or gentleman exists—is going to need a lot of vision and drive to get value out of this extraordinary network. All these thousands of miles of track that go into the very hearts of our cities and towns are not being used properly and nearly enough. They are far too empty. If you see a bird’s eye view from a camera, or a plane with a camera, of our country at morning peak—there still is a bit of a morning peak on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, although Covid has made a bit of a difference on Monday and Friday—you see inadequate roads, increasingly reduced in scale and size by Liberal Democrat councils, with huge traffic jams and queues, making it very difficult for people to drive to work or to the shops or do what they want to do. You see largely empty, fabulous, straight trackways into the centres of our cities, with trains spaced out at two-mile intervals, or whatever it is, because the signalling is pretty primitive and for safety reasons they are very worried about running more trains on the same track, even though they are all going in the same direction on that bit of track. You would have thought that, with modern digital signalling, if we are going to get it, you could actually run more trains safely on that track to take more of the strain of travel.

The travel opportunity for the railway is enormous because its market share has sunk so far. If you look at trips in the last year, you see that only 2% of people’s trips were by train and 59% of their trips were by car, and then there was walking and cycling and so forth. Even if you take miles, where the railway does rather better because people tend to go on trains for rather longer journeys, people are still travelling seven times as much in a car as they are on a train. This is the business opportunity. So my suggestion to the Minister is that this piece of legislation needs some quite big tweaks in order to make it more likely that a controlling mind can come up with a way of selling all that empty rail and track space to enough people and organisations that can run trains to service the true travel needs of the public.

The first thing this controlling mind is going to need is access to private capital. If nationalisation means no more private capital then the railway is going to be even shorter of capital than it has been to date. I urge the Minister to allow for private capital, which must mean allowing challenger companies to offer services and facilities on the properties or the tracks to bring in the innovation and extra capital capacity that will be needed. Given that we are going to need a lot of innovation, a vital part of that package is open access. Once the Minister has completed his great train set under nationalised control, he must allow others to say, “I can do it better”, “I can do it differently”, or “I can make proper use of this track which the nationalised industry is not using properly”, in order to bring in the innovation and extra service quality that we will need.

I hope that a nationalised industry will want to take more pride in the railway than Network Rail has taken to date. When I go on a rail journey, I am often absolutely horrified when I look out of the window and see the rusty old rolling stock in the siding just wasting away, the old sleepers piled up as if nobody owns them, the brambles and the weeds growing out of the parallel track that is not used very much, and the uncared-for look of the whole place, with peeling paint on the stations and rusting iron on some of the very old stations. It is a mess, with graffiti over everything. I say innovate, allow contestability, bring in new services and clean the place up. Let us be proud of it, then the public might want to use it.

HS2 Ltd: Consultants

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I should say from this Dispatch Box that the Government, too, are immensely saddened by the events in Bedford last Friday. Our sympathies are wholly with the relatives of the deceased driver and all those affected by the accident. The Secretary of State for Transport will be making a Statement later in the other place.

In respect of the spend on consultants, the spend in the 2025-26 financial year is for a fundamentally different purpose than any money previously spent on consultancy for HS2. The company was not in control of the contracts it had let or of what work had been done. The effort to find out what work had been done for the money that has been spent—roughly two-thirds of the original budget has been spent and only one-third of the work has been done—is testimony to the way in which the project was managed. Getting control of it means finding out what was done, and that is what this money has been spent on.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

When will we have a realistic timetable and budget to complete the works on this much-delayed railway line?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The recent Statement by the Secretary of State for Transport in the other place said that the project—with Mark Wild as the new chief executive and Mike Brown as the new chair of the new board—is now expected to cost between £87.7 billion and £102.7 billion. The first trains are now expected to run between Old Oak Common and Birmingham Curzon Street sometime between May 2036 and October 2039, and the full scheme, including Euston Station and the connection to the west coast main line at Handsacre Junction, is expected to open between May 2040 and December 2043.

Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL]

Lord Redwood Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the three main aims of this legislation, which were well set out by the Minister. The Government are right that the aviation industry has been growing reasonably well and could make a bigger contribution to growth and prosperity in our country. The Government are right that safety is a vital priority behind which all parties in this House would unite. They are right to realise that, as technologies change, aeroplanes evolve and our airspace becomes ever more congested, it is necessary for a Government to accept the prime safety responsibility and ask whether the rules and guidance are still correct, and whether the regulatory authorities are doing their job in carrying out their task of enforcing safety.

We all want to see good conditions for passengers. That has to be a balance, because if you go too far in regulating in favour of super service then the price can go up too much. The Government must form a judgment on what is an appropriate minimum level of service quality to require so that no one is left in a bad way. This is particularly true of disabled people, as we have been hearing. However, they have to be careful not to overdo standards, which then prices people out of the market and it becomes a middle-class indulgence.

Where I have more doubts about the Bill is when it comes to the detail. I found the 316-page impact assessment heavy going. I do not know whether other colleagues bothered or whether they did not get to the exciting conclusion at the end—I must have missed the exciting conclusion at the end. It was repetitious, very generalised and very high-level. It was clearly a piece of work done by officials who were given an impossible task. They were meant to work out what regulatory changes are going to be made and ask the usual questions of an impact assessment, on the costs of these regulatory changes and the benefits of carrying them through, as some things you will have to do because they are for safety but, for lots of other things, you will have to make a judgment about the trade-offs. Are the costs too high or are the benefits exciting enough to go for it?

Remarkably, this impact assessment concludes that there will be just a small net loss, as a result of the legislation, of just a few million pounds for a multi-billion-pound industry, and so this is well within the margin of error. When you try to find out why the figures are so small, you find that there are practically no benefits identified because this Bill will ensure that nothing happens for quite a long time. It is arranging the regulatory furniture but it will not change what will apply to airlines and passengers any time soon.

The Bill has delay built into it at every opportunity. We read in the impact assessment that it may take a year for us and the other place to get the legislation through and finally into effect. Then, apparently it will take another year before the Government come up with changes to use the very large powers that this legislation will give to Ministers and to regulators without further reference to Parliament. We are being asked to sign a blank cheque, but Ministers have no idea who they will want to make the cheque or cheques out to, let alone how much there may be on them.

The House needs to understand that this is what I would call officials’ legislation. This is not a burning desire of a Minister who knows his subject very well to make changes which are soon going to make a difference to aviation and to economic growth in this country. This is “good management-type” official legislation, saying that we may need these powers and need to copy a whole load of EU regulations that have already passed—or, more likely, that are going to come out soon—so let us have these powers and make sure that most of these things can be done by a regulatory body without any reference to Parliament or by statutory instrument with minimum debate, and that way we do not need to trouble people about it. When the House proceeds to investigate the legislation, it will want a bit more from the Ministers on how they would use these considerable powers.

I would like more urgency from Ministers. The impact assessment says that nothing is going to happen before three to five years have elapsed, because of the year legislating, the year thinking about how to use the powers, and then the powers coming into effect. In other words—and Labour Peers should think about this—this legislation is basically saying that it cannot make any improvement to aviation or provide any extra growth in the lifetime of this Parliament. That is disappointing.

I am a bit more ambitious than the Government. I find myself saying there are things that could be done now, on a shorter timetable, which could make life better for the aviation sector, its passengers and its users. Take the prime one of growth—that is my main concern. I have always said how much I admire the fact that the Government want to be a growth Government, but I have been critical about how many of the things they do actually achieve the opposite. Here is one thing that is not actually going to achieve the opposite—it is just not going to achieve anything, according to the papers before us—where more could happen.

The Minister says that we will have an opportunity in due course to discuss the expansion of Heathrow. Heathrow is the dominant airport of the UK aviation sector, and the success and growth of Heathrow will be a dominant factor in how well this sector does. Delaying a debate seems a little odd, because surely this should be the prime concern of the Government at the moment. When I look at the plans, I believe the Government have backed the plan that takes the longest and is the dearest. They have gone for the plan where the M25 needs to move, which adds more than £20 billion to the total cost and I suspect will add quite a lot of delay to the whole thing, as well as the actual cost of building the additional runway—whereas there is a rival scheme, at considerably less cost and to a tighter timetable, where the runway would fit on to the existing land extending more eastwards so that we do not have to rebuild the M25.

Maybe the Government are right. I would be interested to hear their case. But we would need reassurances that the M25, during all those difficult works, would not be disrupted. Look at the important transport infrastructure of this country. The M25 is one of the dominant and most important pieces of infrastructure that we have put in, saving all those journeys through London and allowing so much commerce and passenger traffic to flow around the city relatively quickly on a good day. We do not really need a big disruption of that.

As someone who some years ago had as my main business career offering financial advice to Governments around the world, I had to fly quite a lot, rather more than I wanted to in those days. To me, as a travelling businessman earning revenue for my firm and for the country as a whole in selling overseas services, what mattered was timeliness and accessibility. I was interested in total journey time from my house to the office I was going to advise. Quite often there was disproportionate time, trouble and delay in getting from my house, some 35 miles from the airport, to Heathrow to get on the plane, which might even have been on time. Ministers looking at growth of airports and accessibility to airports have to consider surface transportation. There have been improvements in recent years to get better rail access to Heathrow. It took a very long time for those of us who wanted that to break through with the authorities to get it to happen. That now has happened with both an extensive Tube option and a link to the old Great Western main line. But we need to make sure that road access also works for those who wish to use the airport.

It would be useful if the Minister could give us an update on Gatwick, the second very large airport in the London area. There was a plan to have a much cheaper and faster progress to many more passenger movements, with the idea of having a constant-use second runway. That requires shifting the existing relief runway a little, so there is quite a bill of cost. That was meant to be coming along before the end of this decade, and it would be very interesting to hear an update on whether it is going to happen.

The relevance to this Bill is that, of course, as those airport expansions happen, many more slots will become available. We owe it to those who are thinking of venturing very large sums of money to expand Gatwick and Heathrow to let them know what the rules of the game will be when they come to place those slots, and to look to see how they are going to remunerate the large sum of money in the case of Gatwick and the absolutely colossal sum of money in the case of Heathrow, even in the original budgets. Heathrow has all that additional risk from complexity, which could result in needing to remunerate even more capital than is currently envisaged.

While I welcome the three main aims of the Government and think that this legislation could be improved by telling us in detail how they can do things that will improve all those, we need more on the environmental impact on surrounding communities living close to airports. I speak as someone who used to represent a constituency that was some 35 miles or so out of London to the west, where there were problems with Heathrow noise. There are solutions that could be woven into this legislation or general government policy. A new generation of planes should be considerably less noisy. It is possible to construct flight paths that are less intrusive, and it is certainly possible to increase the angle of ascent and descent, which reduces the magnitude of the area affected by the noise nuisance. The more that can be done to encourage quieter aviation, the better. There are also other environmental issues relating to surface transport; I gently sketched them in relation to Heathrow and the M25, but there are similar issues for other airports.

My final point is that while, if you are interested in UK economic growth, of necessity you clearly concentrate on how you develop Heathrow and Gatwick—the giant two—regional airports well outside London can also be extremely important to economic prosperity and commerce. I would welcome more thoughts on how they can promote themselves with a good network of routes that do not require interchanging in London—or in Schiphol, as happens so often at the moment for people flying from northern and western airports. I urge the Government to look again at why this is all taking so long, why there is no sense of urgency and why there is not a much clearer refrain in this that we can go for growth here. One of the great triumphs of the UK economy over the last decade has been the big, successful surge in the export of services. Above all, services need really good aviation links, in the way I briefly described from past personal anecdote. I urge the Minister to see himself as a growth champion and to say to his colleagues in government that we can do better than this.

Trains: Punctuality

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

It is a very reasonable point. People should be able to rely on public transport, particularly those who do not have access to a car of their own. One reason why I am so passionate, and the Government are passionate, about good performance on the railway, and indeed on the rest of the public transport system, is so that people can rely on it to go to work and create economic growth in this country.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

When will we be able to catch an HS2 train to Birmingham? This is a fully integrated, nationalised railway with enormous financial resource, but it never goes anywhere.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord needs to get up to speed with the history of HS2, because it has been comprehensively mismanaged by every Government who have had anything to do with it, and by the board and, sadly, by the management of the company that is building it. This Government have faced the most enormous task of sorting it out. I know that Mark Wild, who successfully managed to open the Elizabeth line after many delays from the people who were constructing it, and Mike Brown, who is the chair of HS2, are working as hard as they can to get HS2 open as soon as they can, having first established how much it will cost and how long it will take to deliver—which are two facts that were unavailable at the time this Government took office.

Rail Freight

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am glad that the noble Baroness asked me that question. Network Rail has found some money to do studies on greater access to London Gateway, and that is the right thing to do. The question of electrification is one of the subjects that we need to discuss with the port’s owners, DP World. The other subject is the level crossings, which are probably a greater barrier to more freight trains there. I have recently written to the local district council about this, and my department is looking to have a meeting with DP World, Network Rail and the freight operators to decide how best to take that forward.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

My Lords, will the Government speed up digital signalling and proper traffic information in the cab so that there can be more slots for all types of rail traffic, because obviously we want to expand rather more than the Government are suggesting in the short term?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

How right the noble Lord is. The digital signalling programme for the east coast main line does absolutely as he describes, which is to give more capacity on the existing track. It is in train, as far as I know; it is on target and on budget for the south end of the east coast main line. It is subscribed to by all the operators, including all the freight operators that use it. One of its principal objectives is to get more train paths out of the same railway.

Zero-emission Vehicles, Drivers and HS2

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

No, not at all. Having no regard for taxpayers’ money would be deciding that a project was going to cost too much and deliver too little in benefits, and then continuing to spend taxpayers’ money regardless. This will not be welcomed by everybody and it was not the consensus view, but we have decided to cancel the second phase. By the way, this was about not just increased costs, but the combination of increased costs and reduced benefits, as I said in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). It was about the two things together, and we have decided to reinvest the money in alternative transport projects, which, by the way, have a higher return on investment and will therefore deliver a greater return to taxpayers. That shows exactly the opposite of what the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) said—that we value taxpayers’ money and want to deliver the best return for taxpayers’ money, which is why we have made this change in how we are investing their hard-earned money.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Many councils apply for grants in order to make changes to their local roads. When considering these applications, will Ministers ensure that they do not end up paying for schemes that cut local capacity on crucial roads and make drivers’ lives a misery?

[Mr Harper]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point about what we should prioritise when funding roads. He should know that one of the important changes I have made is to make sure that our active travel team is focused on delivering cycling and walking schemes that increase choice, rather than focusing on driving people out of their cars. I hope he will welcome that important change.

UK Automotive Industry

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 18th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I rise to urge the Government to be careful about rushing to close our factories making diesel and petrol cars before we have established the electrical revolution and are confident that we have created the capacity and the extra jobs in the alternative power system that the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) is so passionately recommending. I would ask the Labour Opposition, who seem even keener to close our petrol and diesel capacity more quickly, to consider why Germany, with a far larger automotive industry than our own, has decided with the EU to delay the ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles to 2035 rather than 2030, and also why Germany thinks it needs to make provision for the possibility that it can make cars that work on synthetic fuels or some derivative of hydrogen as an alternative to the battery system as a way of getting to a low carbon output. Germany might not be wrong. I think that we will discover as a country that it is much easier to close factories and terminate the production of petrol and diesel cars than it is to get those much-wanted electrical factories into operation, with all the supply chain that that requires.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Is the right hon. Gentleman not making an important admission that although the EU has delayed ending the manufacture of combustion engines, there are important exemptions in that those cars should be run only on synthetic fuels and sustainable fuels?

[John Redwood]

I have said that the EU was keen to explore the synthetic fuel opportunity. In the meantime, it is not recommending the closure of traditional vehicle factories at pace. Indeed, the EU has recently required of its member states that they should not only speed up the roll-out of electrical charging points—which will clearly be needed if people are to buy more electric cars—but roll out the provision of hydrogen refuelling places, not synthetic fuels. It is probably easier to deal with synthetic fuels, because a good synthetic fuel that is liquid at normal temperatures can be used in the usual distribution system, using the sunk assets that already exist in the petrol and diesel system. Indeed, one of the ways to introduce synthetic fuels more easily would be to gradually increase the proportion of synthetic fuel mixed into traditional fuels, as we have with E10 petrol and as is being talked about for sustainable aviation fuels, where there are target percentages for the introduction of lower carbon ingredients in the fuels.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

I am very much a supporter of synthetic fuels. I think they will have a role to play in the years moving forward. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what emissions synthetic fuels will emit from a combustion engine compared with the current fossil fuel equivalent?

[John Redwood]

That is to ask, “How long is a piece of string?” A variety of these fuels are being produced in trials in small quantities. They need to have all their characteristics explored, then people will decide which ones give the best green output for the lowest cost for scale-up.

The whole House needs to get better at carbon accounting. I hear from all sides that unless we go for battery cars, we will not meet our net zero targets. I am suggesting that there may be other ways of getting closer to net zero targets through other types of fuels. I also do not quite understand why so many people in the House think that getting people to buy electric battery cars today helps us with our net zero targets. Let us take the example of a well-off person who decides to replace their petrol or diesel car with an electric battery vehicle. They have enough money to be able to afford one—they are quite expensive—and they are also fortunate in that they have a driveway or personal garage and can pay to have a charger put in at home. They realise that they will always be able to get there and back for short and medium distances without having to rely on unpredictable and rather scarce public charging systems, so they are ready to go. When they get home and recharge their car on the first night, however, there is no extra renewable electricity to send to them. We use every bit of renewable electricity every day, whether or not the wind is blowing, because it is given priority so, when the car is plugged in overnight, a gas power station will probably have to up its output a little to supply the electricity. Far from helping us to meet our net zero target, that new electric car is probably increasing the amount of electricity that has to be generated from fossil fuels.

I have read a number of studies that attempt to get to the truth of how much of a contribution, or detriment, getting more people to switch to electric cars might make to reducing world CO₂, and there are rather different answers because the calculations are very complicated. I am more persuaded by the people who do total-life-of-vehicle calculations. We need to recognise that more CO₂ is generated in producing a typical electric car, including the battery, than in producing a petrol or diesel car. Mining all the metals and minerals needed for the battery and battery production is particularly intensive, and more CO₂ could be produced to deal with the waste when the battery reaches the end of its useful life and needs to be replaced, which is an expensive and complicated task.

To beat running a petrol or diesel car for a bit longer, a person running an electric car would need to do a very high mileage and would need to make sure that every unit of electricity used to charge the vehicle is generated from zero-carbon sources. At the moment, it is very clear that none of these requirements has been met. Although I can understand why we need to encourage people to go on this journey to build up the fleet of electric cars, against the day when we generate more zero-carbon electricity, we must accept that, in the short term, it is probably bad news for the world’s CO₂.

I am worried that we may be in danger of not achieving our main green objective, at the same time that we are spending a lot of money on a subsidy war with other countries that are similarly desperate to get battery production. I am also very worried that the UK, Europe and, to a lesser extent, the United States of America are so behind China in putting in battery manufacturing capability, and so behind China in doing deals with world suppliers of critical minerals and battery components, that it places us in a very vulnerable industrial position, which is why both the European Union and the United Kingdom are having difficulties ensuring enough value added in electric cars to meet our own criteria. That is a common and shared problem, and the solution is not easy because we need to leapfrog 10 years, or whatever, to get to the point at which we have control over the minerals, the raw materials and the production of batteries so we can meet those criteria.

I am also very worried about how customers are left out of most of these debates. They are taken for granted and, when they do not behave in quite the way that politicians would like, politicians invent taxes, subsidies and bans to say, “Well, we are going to make you choose a car you would not have chosen for yourself, because we do not think you are making the right choices.” I would rather live in a world in which the hugely talented motor industry, and all the skilled scientists and technologists who help it, work away at producing cars that are better, more affordable, safer, higher quality and meet our service requirements so that we willingly buy the electric or synthetic fuel alternative, rather than sticking to petrol or diesel vehicles. We are not there yet, as we can see. The proportion of people wanting to buy electric cars is still a minority, despite all the very aggressive advertising, promotion and political weight behind them. Part of that is affordability, part of it is range, part of it is the worry about refuelling and part of it is uncertainty about battery life and repair. There are many complicated decisions when trying to make such a big switch in product availability, and people have come to like their traditional petrol or diesel vehicle. They have the measure of those vehicles and think they provide a very good service. As a country, we should not get too far ahead of our electorates and consumers.

If we look at the fast growth of electric car sales, from a very low base, we will find that it is much more concentrated in the business fleet market than in the personal choice market, because companies feel under more of a moral imperative to buy into this idea, which I have just exposed as somewhat odd, that these are super-green vehicles, whereas individuals say, “But it is not affordable, it is not practical and it is not what I want.”

[Gavin Newlands]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the reason why fleet purchases are now massively outstripping personal purchases is the tax incentives given to fleet purchases, whereas the incentives for private purchases have all but disappeared under this Government?

[John Redwood]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and it is an additional reinforcement, but I think fleet buyers are also very conscious of the environmental requirements.

I stress that, for this to work, it has to be a popular revolution. Millions of people have to decide for themselves, having listened to the arguments and seen the products, that green products are better than the old products, and in some cases they very clearly are and people will rush out to buy them. If we are still in a world in which people are not of that view, we can subsidise, tax and lecture all we like, but people will not change their mind.

One of the ways in which businesses and people could get around any attempt by this Government or a future Government to ban all sales of new petrol and diesel vehicles in 2030, when the rest of the world is not doing so, is that people will set up businesses to import nearly new petrol and diesel cars from places that still sell them and make them, to sell them as second-hand cars on the UK market. I do not believe anyone is suggesting that we ban the sale of second-hand diesel and petrol cars, as that would immediately remove all the value from our cars, meaning that we are prisoners—we either run the car until it falls to pieces or we lose its value and are unable to make the changes we would normally make.

There will have to be a definition of what is a new car, and it will presumably have something to do with how long ago it was made and/or how many miles it has on the clock. Whatever the definition, there will then be a good opportunity for people to sell cars that are four months old, rather than three months old, or that have 3,000 miles on the clock instead of 500 delivery miles. There would be a nearly new market, but the cars would all be imports, because people here would try to obey the law.

I urge all politicians to remember that they cannot just lecture, ban, tax or subsidise people into doing things unless the product has an underlying merit that people can see. Can we please work with the industry to prove that underlying merit? And do not ban things in the meantime, because Britain will lose jobs and factories. We cannot save the electric vehicle until the electric vehicle saves itself.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Newlands]

Praise for the SNP from the Democratic Unionist party might also not feature on my leaflets in the west of Scotland, as that might cause more problems than help. However, the hon. Gentleman makes a good point about rural chargers, as they are certainly part of the solution. Internal combustion engines and so on will clearly have to be part of the mix for some time to come for those in rural communities. That is where Scotland has taken a different approach over the past decade and more. Scotland has a comprehensive charging network, but the parts of it that are the most comprehensive are in the highlands, the Western Isles and Orkney—they are in the rural and island locations, where the private sector would not invest and so the Scottish Government invested to make sure that there was a charging infrastructure for the highlands and islands. However, I fully accept the general point he is making.

To come back to a point made in the speech by the right hon. Member for Wokingham, Orkney has the second highest rate of EV ownership in the UK, but that is hardly a surprise, as Orkney has the highest number of public EV chargers per capita in the UK outside London—this is four times the English rate outside of London. The lesson is clear: give drivers confidence in the charging network, combined with incentives, and people will switch to EVs. We still have a long way to go. In Norway, 20% of all cars on the road and 80% of all new cars are EVs. That is where we could be; in fact, that is where we should be.

Alexander Dennis Limited is a world leader in bus manufacturing and one of Scotland’s key manufacturers and exporters of high-quality products around the world. Just this year, its Enviro200AV electric fleet was used as the vehicle of choice for the autonomous bus service across the iconic Forth Road bridge. As diesel and petrol buses are phased out and replaced with zero emission vehicles—at least, that should be the plan—ADL is innovating with new electric battery technology that will ultimately benefit the environment and transport networks. However, that requires UK Government support and, so far, their record on buses leaves much to be desired.

There have been 558 zero emission buses ordered in Scotland through the Scottish Government’s ScotZEB and SULEBS—the Scottish zero emission bus challenge fund and Scottish ultra-low emission bus scheme—which is the equivalent of around 5,600 buses in England. Let us bear in mind that the previous Prime Minister’s target was 4,000 in England and that the vast majority of the zero emission buses ordered in Scotland are actually on the road. The figures equate to 10.1 buses per 100,000 people, compared with just 0.94 per 100,000 delivered through equivalent schemes in England, outside London. That is an extraordinary gulf in both ambition and delivery.

[John Redwood]

Does the hon. Gentleman have any thoughts on how the Government should go about replacing all the lost petrol and diesel taxes if electric vehicles take off?

[Gavin Newlands]

I am not sure I heard the right hon. Gentleman’s question correctly. Would he mind repeating it?

[John Redwood]

My point is that if we achieve a big switch to electric cars, the United Kingdom will lose a huge amount of petrol and diesel tax. How should we replace that lost tax revenue?

[Gavin Newlands]

That is a very astute intervention. I did not pick up that he said the word “tax”, so apologies for asking him to repeat the question. It is a fair point. I am a member of the Transport Committee and we worked on a report about that a while back. The elephant in the room is that we will have to look at something to replace the current form of taxation. The SNP does not have a policy on whether that is road pricing or whatever, but we have to have that conversation and we have to have it now. We all know that revenue at the Treasury is already an issue, and will become an ever-increasing issue every year, so we have to have that debate sooner rather than later. I rather suspect we will not hear much about it before the election, but after the election that debate will have to begin in earnest.

Of course, in an independent Scotland we would have control of the same fiscal and tax incentives that have encouraged those huge levels of electric vehicle uptake in countries such as Norway. The Department for Transport’s poor record on EV charging is a glaring obstacle on our path to decarbonisation. When compared to some of our European counterparts, the deficiencies in our charging network are stark. We must acknowledge that reliable and widespread EV charging infrastructure is essential to encourage the adoption of electric vehicles and reduce carbon emissions from the transport sector.

Scotland’s approach to rapid EV charging infrastructure is an example of what can be achieved. The SNP Scottish Government have made huge strides in expanding the EV charging infrastructure, with one hand tied behind their back. The network has grown from 55 charge points in 2013 to over 2,500 charge points in 2023. In fact, the latest figures, published in July by the DFT, show Scotland has 72.7 chargers per 100,000 people, which is around 40% more per head than English regions outside London, and 19.2 rapid chargers per head, which is nearly double London’s figure of 10.7.

The lack of rapid charging infrastructure in many English regions, and much of Northern Ireland, makes charging a postcode lottery and hampers the transition to EVs, leaving residents without reliable options for charging their cars That imbalance is not only detrimental to our environmental goals, but exacerbates regional disparities. One would think addressing those imbalances would be a priority for a Government who have been talking about levelling up for quite some time.

The challenges facing the industry are multifaceted and require immediate attention and action. Brexit’s disruptive influence, unresponsive Government policy and the internal strife within the Tory party are hindering our efforts to tackle climate change and transition to a sustainable future.

The Scottish Government have led the way on transport decarbonisation, from the EV incentives and charging infrastructure I have talked about and decarbonising our railways at twice the pace of the UK Government, to many times more electric buses per head, funded, bought and actually on the road, those 21 and under travelling free on those same buses, and the gulf—the chasm—in investment in active travel. We have shown what we can do despite the dead hand of Westminster, so just imagine what we can do when that hand is removed by independence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pawsey]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and I will make some remarks on that issue in just a second.

The view about the need to support our move to net zero, and the steps that we need to take, are very much mainstream. The environment is still a top issue, and a rising issue among people in the country more generally. It is in the top five when people are asked about issues facing the world. Climate change is consistently there above poverty, war and migration. Therefore, there is an increasing acceptance of the need for change, but the question is over the pace of change. Back in 2017, our date for ending the sale of conventional petrol and diesel-powered vehicles was 2040. In the BEIS Committee report, we called for all new cars and vans to be truly zero emission by 2032, bringing the target forward eight years. As a Member of Parliament with an interest in UK auto-manufacturing and close to businesses that were involved in it, at the time we prepared the report five years ago, I was concerned that bringing the target forward was too ambitious. I was really bothered that it would put our UK-based manufacturers at a disadvantage because I believed they would struggle to electrify the UK-manufactured heavier and larger cars. However, it soon became clear that manufacturers such as Jaguar Land Rover were willing to move faster, with Jaguar very soon to become an all-electric brand. We now have the date set at 2030.

Having set that date, and with the good news that we have had recently of BMW’s investment in the Mini plant at Oxford, and the manufacture of all electric products at Ellesmere Port, it is vital that the Government stick to the 2030 date. There are voices making the case for relaxation, but Ministers and the Government should stand firm because what industry needs is some certainty.

To take up the point of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), I accept that there is a case about the high cost of electric vehicles, compared with those powered by an internal combustion engine. In many cases, the new vehicle is something in the order of £10,000 more expensive on a like-for-like basis. Interestingly, many manufacturers— I have in mind Volkswagen—are bringing out new models, rather than electrifying the existing model range, to avoid a direct comparison. Of course, the higher purchase price can be offset by lower running costs. The electricity costs less than petrol or diesel where the price is inflated by the addition of fuel duty. There will be lower servicing costs on the electric vehicle as a consequence of their having fewer moving parts. However, I accept that, for some people, the higher cost is an obstacle.

As we have heard, some countries are further down the road in the manufacturing of EVs, with a range of new models ready to come into the UK. I have in mind China, which, according to many industry watchers, has up to 10 new brands to launch in the UK by the end of the decade. Although they will be less expensive than UK or European-produced products, they will not be as attractive to the consumer because they will not possess the brand and heritage, which is a big part of the value. UK manufacturers will have to take on this competition and, in many cases, that will mean, as they already are, focusing on higher-quality, more upmarket models. That means that, when we look at the performance in the UK, it will be as important to focus on revenue derived from sales as on units sold.

[John Redwood]

The danger is that China will try to acquire some of those brand attributes. After all, China owns MG, does it not?

[Mark Pawsey]

I accept that point, but Chinese manufacturers are intending to bring to the UK a load of brands that are anonymous and bland and they will not have the same attractiveness to the consumer.

On the incentives to acquire an electric vehicle, in recent years, there has been a cash grant to offset the extra cost of an EV. That now stands, I think, at £1,500 towards a vehicle costing less than £32,000. One way the Government could make a change and provide a reason for many private buyers to buy EVs is to level the playing field between private buyers and company car users. We have already heard that company drivers benefit from favourable benefit-in-kind rates, which means that they can save hundreds of pounds each month if they choose an EV over an internal combustion engine. One reason that employers are keen to encourage that is that they make savings on employers’ national insurance contributions. That is why many of the EVs on our roads are company cars. An increasing number of companies are also offering salary sacrifice schemes as a method of getting staff to switch to an EV. It would be beneficial if the parliamentary authorities were to launch such a programme in Parliament as a way of getting MPs and staff here to consider making the change.

On electrical vehicle charging, in our Select Committee report, we spent a lot of time considering charging infrastructure. We know that, in addition to the higher capital cost, range anxiety is a key reason drivers will not switch. Frankly, I hope the Minister will accept that the picture here is less rosy, with public charging in particular failing to keep pace with increasing numbers of electric vehicles.

I got a sense of the challenges when the most recent motorway services opened at junction 1 of the M6 at Rugby in 2021. At one point, because of the lack of power infrastructure, it looked as though the site would open with only two charge points. It was a real challenge to get enough power but, fortunately, good work by the site operator and the power network enabled 24 charge points to be available at the opening. Thanks to additional provision since 2021, there are now 40 charge points at junction 1 of the M6 at Rugby. It is a great place for people to stop in the middle of a long journey across England.

Too often, chargers are busy or are not working. I happened to notice a letter in The Times today from a driver of an electric vehicle, who recounts that he restricts his round trips to his battery’s limit of 240 miles and takes public transport for longer journeys. In fact, he questions—perhaps with tongue in cheek—whether that is the Government’s intentional strategy. Clearly we will not achieve the transition we need if every electric vehicle has that issue.

I appeal to the Minister to intervene with my local authority. Warwickshire County Council is providing public charge points but is allowing anybody to park in front of them for as long as they like, so someone who has identified a vacant charger via the app may get to a site and find a diesel internal combustion engine-powered vehicle occupying it. That seems absolutely crazy. I ask the Minister to put pressure on local authorities to ensure that parking in front of public EV chargers is available only to electric vehicles, and that they move off once they have finished charging.

A further issue for many EV drivers is that charging at a public site has a higher cost than charging at home. I suspect most EV drivers expect to pay more for using the facility and for charging faster, but I do not know how many realise that they are paying 20% VAT, compared with just 5% at home. That is why I supported the campaign by the motoring journalist Quentin Willson to reform VAT and equalise the charge.

We spend a lot of time talking about battery manufacture; in fact, the Business and Trade Committee is conducting an inquiry into it. The conventional thinking is that because a battery represents 40% of the value and weight of an electric vehicle, assembly will migrate close to where the batteries are manufactured. West midlands MPs, including me, have been calling for the development of a gigafactory at the Coventry airport site, adjacent to the traditional heart of UK automotive manufacture. I very much welcome the investment coming to Somerset from Tata Sons, with 40 GW of capability, but it is well accepted that we need 100 GW to keep business operating at the same level. To achieve that, we will need one more gigafactory, or maybe two. I very much hope that that will happen in the midlands, at the Coventry airport site.

Five years on from our Select Committee report, automotive remains an important sector and a major contributor to the UK economy. The transition to EVs presents real opportunities for manufacturers, the supply chain and the associated sectors. The one thing I know from my business career is that businesses need certainty. Having embarked on change for all the right reasons, the Government must maintain their course and create the climate for further growth in future years.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey). I echo him in urging the Government to stick to the 2030 target—a point that I will make in my speech.

The climate emergency will not go away. Surface transport is responsible for nearly a third of the UK’s carbon emissions, and more than half of surface transport emissions come from private cars and taxis. The electric vehicle transition is therefore vital. The 2030 target to end the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles is an important tool to bring us towards decarbonisation. It gives the industry the certainty for which it so often asks, and it has worked: sales of EVs in the UK are exceeding expectations, according to Chris Stark of the Climate Change Committee. That gives us confidence that the 2030 target is achievable, proving all the naysayers wrong. Reports suggest, however, that the Government have been tempted to cut the “green crap” and that they will water down this important target. The permanent fear that the UK Government will go back on their word weakens our automotive industry. A tough target is better than persistent U-turns.

We Liberal Democrats have consistently encouraged the automotive industry to embrace the future and to transition from petrol and diesel to electric cars. We need a Government who are equally committed and who will not be derailed by their Back Benchers. I am very pleased that BMW will build the new electric Mini in Oxford; it is a significant investment that demonstrates the economic opportunities. I am even more excited that Somerset will host a new gigafactory for battery production. Those are important milestones on which we must build.

We now need a longer-term strategy to truly grow the industry. Transport & Environment UK is worried about how much of the more than £800 million in the automotive transformation fund has been spent. It is concerned that wider investment cannot be maintained without expensive subsidies. Uncertainty around the zero-emission vehicle mandate and the lack of an overall industrial strategy add to those concerns.

The Government have a poor track record when it comes to building electric vehicle supply chains. The collapse of Britishvolt was a staggering blow. When he was Chancellor, the Prime Minister said that Britishvolt

“will produce enough batteries for over 300,000 electric vehicles each year”.

Now Britishvolt will produce none. Mistakes were made at the company, but was there really nothing that the Government could have done to prevent the loss of such an important business?

If we are to build an EV industry in the UK, we must ensure that there is enough demand. The Government must support manufacturers as global players. As we have heard, a clause in the UK Government’s Brexit deal means that at the end of this year, British-made EVs will face tariffs of up to 22% when exporting to the EU if they do not contain 40% local content. That puts UK manufacturers at a huge disadvantage. I would like to know what the Government, rather than overblowing the perceived Brexit benefits, are actually doing about an acute issue that is putting the future of motor manufacturing in the UK at great risk.

Although the sales targets for commercial EVs are very encouraging, private uptake of EVs is proving more difficult. We have heard many of the reasons for that, but the main barrier for potential private buyers, apart from cost, remains charging anxiety. So far, EVs are not a realistic option for householders who cannot park or charge their cars outside or near their homes. In last year’s EV infrastructure strategy, the Government made no firm commitment that infrastructure roll-out would rise in line with EV market uptake. Recent Government statistics show that only 19% of all chargers are rapid chargers. That is a problem for long-distance travel: people cannot be expected to wait for hours to charge their car when they are on the go.

We Liberal Democrats would invest urgently to speed up the installation of rapid charging points throughout the country. Rapid chargers must be installed where people will use them. Motorway service stations must therefore be the No. 1 priority, but we must consider other locations, too.

[John Redwood]

Is the hon. Lady also worried that there is a lack of cable capacity under our streets and of grid capacity to get the power to those fast chargers? How long will that take to resolve and how will that be done?

[Wera Hobhouse]

I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns, which is why we consistently make the case for upgrading the grid. That is one of the most important things for getting to net zero in the UK, not just for vehicle charging, but for the roll-out of all the electric infrastructure we need for our many renewable energy installations. I share his concern, but the solution is not to stop the roll-out of electric vehicles; it is to improve the grid and get things sped up as quickly as possible.

If, for example, electric charge points are installed in places where non-electric vehicles park, such as in lamp posts or bollards, valuable charging space will be lost. We Liberal Democrats would give grants to parish and town councils to install charging facilities where they will actually be used—for instance, at village and community halls.

It is important that the Government do not stop the incentives for EV uptake. They must stop penalising people who cannot charge their EVs at home. Drivers currently pay 20% value added tax to use a public charge point, compared with 5% VAT for home charging. That unjustifiable discrepancy must end and the VAT rate for all electric vehicle charges must be equalised at 5%.

Electric vehicles will drive us down the road to net zero. Infrastructure and incentives will be vital. What we need is a Government who are willing to fuel this transition, rather than being content to trundle along in the slow lane.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Over the last few months, I have—high vis and hard hat at the ready—been blown away by the possibilities in our automotive industry, but I have also felt the force of the headwinds facing the sector, including EU rules of origin, high electricity prices in manufacturing, the slow roll-out of EV charge points, the shortage of gigafactory capacity, delays to the zero-emission vehicle mandate, and, of course, the continuing fallout from the way in which the Conservatives crashed the economy this time last year.

The fact is that it is only through a partnership with Government that our vehicle manufacturers can achieve lasting success in a world where new technologies offer opportunity, and competition from new participants such as China is more of a challenge than ever. That is what other countries are doing—other countries that are ahead of us in the low-carbon transport transition race.

I mentioned my recent visits. I saw the pride of the Stellantis workers at Ellesmere Port, where they produce electric vans for Peugeot, Citroën and Fiat, as well as for Vauxhall, and where they want to expand production to be able to export, as they told my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and me just a few weeks ago. I saw the ingenuity on display at the Jaguar Land Rover research and development facility at Gaydon, and JLR’s “Reimagine” project and commitment to all electric across a number of its brands. Then there is ULEMCo in my constituency—please look it up—which has pioneered the use of hydrogen as a drop-in fuel to existing internal combustion engines to cut emissions while full hydrogen options for combustion and fuel cells are being developed.

Those, and many more, are examples of the amazing potential in this country. However, they are all examples in which uncertainty must be addressed to ensure that our automotive industry can thrive. The honest truth is that we are in danger of squandering the advantages that we have in vehicle manufacturing. UK motor vehicle production levels have fallen by 37% since the Conservatives came to office in 2010—one of the largest falls in vehicle production of any country. Eight in every 10 cars produced in the UK are exported, yet exports of cars manufactured in the UK fell by 14% in 2022. The Faraday Institute estimates that the UK will need 200 GWh of gigafactory supply by 2040. Other countries are on track, but we are off the pace. The news of a gigafactory from JLR is, of course, very welcome, but it does not address the demand from the rest of the industry.

We still have the cautionary tale of the failure at Britishvolt as a reminder of the precarious nature of gigafactory development. The problem of the lack of gigafactory capacity is repeated with EV charge points: the Government target of 300,000 charge points is set to be missed by at least a decade. Meanwhile, parking bays for vans are often inaccessible at charge points. The UK has no equivalent to the plans in Germany for dedicated commercial vehicle charging every 60 km to 100 km. Speaking of commercial vehicles, where are the plans for hydrogen refuelling for larger vehicles that will use hydrogen combustion or fuel-cell technology?

Reliance on imports of batteries is directly linked to the question of local content and how UK-produced vehicles will be able to compete in export markets. From next year, a 10% tariff will apply to cars and 22% to vans when rules of origin are exceeded. That will, during a cost of living crisis, also push up prices for consumers who buy imported vehicles. Stellantis wants to expand the electric van production that it showed my hon. Friend and me. It wants to employ more workers and export its new pride and joy to the EU, but to do so, it needs to qualify for local content rules, which will not be ready in time for the looming cliff-edge in a few months’ time. Stellantis, Ford and JLR have all called for a delay in the implementation of new rules of origin to give them time to comply.

The Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), who will wind up, said that he could not comment on negotiations. Indeed, the Minister for Industry and Economic Security, the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), who introduced the debate, said the same thing. But industry is not asking Ministers for a running commentary; it is asking them to say that their objective is to support the request and ensure that it can continue to compete in its biggest export market.

Then, there is the ZEV mandate. The Government said that they would introduce the mandate by January next year. Decisions are taken many years in advance by investors, so regulatory certainty is critical to inform decision making. Motorists need to know whether they should buy another petrol or diesel car, or go hybrid or full electric. Is 2030 still the date for the end of the new petrol and diesel car production, as the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) quite rightly mentioned in his speech? I would like to hear about that from the Minister. Companies are having to second guess the Government, as are consumers.

The lack of a plan for ZEV, for rules of origin, for charge points and for commercial vehicles is an example of the indecision that characterises this Government. It does not have to be this way. Our long-term approach, working as partners with businesses and unions through our industrial strategy, will give investors and consumers the certainty that they want. That is how our competitors operate, and it is how this country needs to work, too. Our clean energy plans and our green prosperity plan will deliver the cheap, clean energy that will help to lower the cost of motoring and unlock the capacity for electric vehicle charging. Our support for hydrogen is also essential for the transition to low carbon for road vehicles that need an alternative to electricity. Labour’s new gigafactories will allow the UK’s automotive industry to source components locally, avoiding tariffs for exports to the EU by addressing the challenge of rules of origin. And we will work with the EU on a plan that avoids the cliff edge of the Prime Minister’s damaging export tariffs, which, with just 100 days to go, are looming large. We will also address the skills gap and the decline in apprenticeship starts—a decline of 170,000 a year since 2017—in part by moving to a growth and skills levy.

Labour’s plan will deliver precisely because we have drawn it up in partnership with the sector.

[John Redwood]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bill Esterson]

I will not, because Madam Deputy Speaker has, quite correctly, been very strict in the time she has allocated.

Labour’s plan will lead to the creation of 80,000 jobs in our industrial heartlands. Our plan will power 2 million electric vehicles and add £30 billion to the UK’s economy. We will accelerate the roll-out of charging points and give motorists the confidence to make the switch. We will have binding targets for electric vehicle chargers that will, like carbon budgets, be binding on the Government. We will ensure that local areas have the support and investment that they need.

Labour’s plans for energy generation are inextricably linked to the transition to low-carbon road transport. Our plan to make the UK a clean-energy superpower by 2030, with net-zero carbon electricity, will deliver capacity and lower energy costs for UK manufacturing. Those costs, including electricity costs, which are 62% higher in the UK than in Germany, are a barrier to our competitiveness. The motor industry and motorists are being let down by this Government. They are being let down on the ZEV mandate; on rules of origin and local content; on the slow progress of gigafactories and EV charge points; and on energy prices. Above all, they have been let down because of the damage done by 13 years of Conservative mismanagement of the economy, which culminated in last year’s disastrous mini-Budget. All of that has led to the further let-down of high interest rates, which are higher than in competitor countries.

The industry wants the roadblocks and the let-downs to be removed. I will leave the last word to Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, who just this morning wrote about the uncertainty around the ZEV mandate, charge points and gigafactory capacity. He said:

“A comprehensive package of measures would encourage households across the UK to go electric now, boosting an industry slowly recovering from the pandemic and delivering benefits for the Exchequer, society and the global environment.”

I could not agree more. With Labour’s industrial strategy, Labour’s green prosperity plan and Labour’s partnership with industry, our automotive sector will be turbocharged to deliver success.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood]

At the moment, if a new EV is added to the charging system, it will be a gas power station that has to fire it up, so it is not a net zero product. When will we be in a position to have enough renewable power so that, if an electric car is added, it will be recharged with renewable power?

[Jesse Norman]

An economist of my right hon. Friend’s distinction will know that it is futile to predict the activity of private markets, because they so often move faster than we would imagine. A classic example of that is the way in which electrification has moved up the range and weight curves over the past few years. It is certainly true that at the moment, electric vehicles rely on fossil fuels for part of their charge, meaning that they are less green than they will be when those fossil fuels are removed from our electrical charging system. Nevertheless, those vehicles remain significantly lower-emission over their life cycle than equivalent petrol and diesel vehicles, including the production and disposal of batteries.

Capacity-building projects for important areas of our connected and autonomous vehicle supply chain are already starting to take place. This country remains one of the first to explore the business case for connected and autonomous mobility as a mass-transit solution. Connected and autonomous mobility will be the future; it will be an electric future, a zero-emission future, and one that is powered by the investments and leadership being provided now, with the private sector, by this Government.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the UK automotive industry.

Electric Vehicles: Infrastructure

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd February 2023 Westminster Hall

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I just wanted to clarify the accounting on carbon dioxide, because the aim is CO₂ reduction. If a lot of people destroy diesel and petrol cars before the end of their useful life, and acquire new electric vehicles, that is a huge amount of CO₂ for the two processes. Is that accounted for? If those people then drive those electric vehicles on days when 70% of our electricity comes from fossil fuels, how does that help?

[Steve Brine]

That, may I tell my friend, is a question that the Minister will be delighted to answer. Net zero is exactly what it says: net zero. The production of electric vehicles is part of the net zero calculation, but the Minister understands that better than I do. I wonder whether the Minister would update us on the ZEV mandate.

Great British Railways

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

I can understand why not having an integrated rail network across Great Britain is a particular priority for the Scottish National party. It clearly is a priority for this UK Government. We will not be looking to devolve responsibility for rail infrastructure, not least because the SNP’s main idea at the moment seems to be stopping the trains for passport control at the border.

On the wider pitch, we are determined to make a difference with our railways. We are seeing real innovation, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have looked at, for example, the experience of Lumo trains from Edinburgh to London. Lumo is an open-access operator that is pulling traffic away from air and on to rail, which is exactly what we want to see. We will get on with the many reforms we can make without primary legislation, but one of them will not be creating a disjointed rail network.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

When will the Government and railway companies come forward with proposals for an improved pattern of services that attracts many more fare-paying passengers? We need to get the deficit down very quickly and the best way of doing so is by getting more people paying fares willingly.

[Kevin Foster]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Clearly, demand patterns have changed dramatically during the pandemic. For example, a lot fewer people are commuting into London at 7 am to 9 am and then leaving between 5 pm and 7 pm, or they are doing that three or four days a week rather than five, so there is a need to look at how we can adapt. We are giving slightly more flexibility to some operating companies, and looking at how we use our ticketing and, in particular, our ticket pricing. The rail sale was a great way of getting a lot of people on to trains that might otherwise have been relatively quiet, producing new revenue to the railways. In addition, as I said in response to the SNP spokesperson, Lumo is targeting traffic that goes by air to get it on tracks.